Case Summary (G.R. No. 163157)
Background and Property Descriptions
The dispute involves adjoining lands formerly part of a single lot (Lot No. 5808-F-2) subdivided into Lots 5808-F-2-A and 5808-F-2-B. Lot No. 5808-F-2-A (89 sq.m.) was registered under petitioners Bernabe and Lorna Mercader, while Lot No. 5808-F-2-B (249 sq.m.) was registered in the names of the respondents, Spouses Bardilas. Both lots referenced a 3-meter wide right of way (road easement) leading to Clarita Village. The Mercader family also owned Lot No. 5808-F-1, adjacent to 5808-F-2-A, registered in the names of their minor children.
The right of way allegedly served as a passage from the Bardilas’s property through Clarita Village to Buhisan Road, a national road. A fence erected by the Clarita Village Association in 1992 effectively blocked this right of way, forcing the Bardilas spouses to seek alternative access through their Lot No. 5808-F-3.
Attempts at Amicable Settlement and Initial Letter Exchanges
Following the fence closure, an investigation by the Cebu City Building Official confirmed encroachments on the right of way by both parties’ fences and a house portion. A meeting convened by the barangay captain resulted in an agreement allowing the Bardilas spouses to install an iron gate in place of the fence, with shared keys between parties.
Subsequently, the Bardilas spouses demanded payment of ₱30,000 from the Mercaders for the encroachment of their house and fence into the right of way, offering alternatively that the Mercaders demolish the encroaching portions. The Mercaders responded by asserting their entitlement to use the right of way as dominant estate owners and proposed to buy equivalent portions at a reasonable price. The Bardilas spouses rejected this claim, citing exclusive ownership of the right of way as per their certificate of title which contained the easement annotation.
Civil Cases Initiated and Trial Court Decisions
- Civil Case No. CEB-12783: The Mercaders filed a suit for declaratory relief, injunction, and damages against the Bardilas spouses, seeking declaration of ownership over the portion occupied by the easement and the extinguishment of the right of way due to non-use. They cited merger of dominant and servient estates and the premise that they retained ownership of the servient estate portion where the easement was established pursuant to Article 630 of the Civil Code.
- Civil Case No. CEB-13384: The Bardilas spouses sued for specific performance with injunctions against the Clarita Village Association and Mercaders due to the encroachment preventing the installation of their iron gate.
The trial court consolidated both cases and rendered judgment in favor of the Mercaders, declaring the easement extinguished due to non-use, affirming the Mercaders’ ownership over the disputed portion, granting right to use and occupy the extinguished easement, and awarding damages and costs to the Mercaders. The court also ruled Clarita Village’s road network to be private property and the closure of the right of way lawful.
Motion for New Trial and Denial
The Bardilas spouses filed a motion for new trial citing newly discovered evidence that the road network had been donated to Cebu City and was thus public. The RTC denied the motion due to the evidence’s lack of proper notarization, incomplete execution (lacking the acting mayor’s signature), and the fact that the evidence was available but not presented during trial. The court held the donation void and invalid, leaving the road network as private property.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA partly reversed the RTC decision, recognizing the Bardilas spouses as owners of the 3-meter road right of way. It granted them the right to use and occupy this road and ordered the Mercaders to pay ₱20,000 as attorney’s fees and court costs. The CA dismissed the Bardilas spouses’ complaint for specific performance and maintained that the Clarita Village road network remained private property.
Petitioners’ Appeal to the Supreme Court and Issues Raised
The Mercaders argued:
- They, too, are entitled to the road right of way as co-owners of one of the subdivided lots originally comprising Lot No. 5808-F-2.
- The annotation of an existing 3-meter wide right of way in their title indicated equal entitlement.
- The Bardilas’s property also has access to Buhisan Road via another right of way.
- The CA erred in awarding attorney’s fees without legal basis.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Right of Way Ownership
The Court clarified that easement (servitude) is an incorporeal real right over another’s property, which means the owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion burdened by the easement under Article 630 of the Civil Code. Ownership of the servient estate comes with rights such as jus utendi (use), jus fruendi (enjoyment), jus abutendi (disposition), jus disponendi (transfer), and jus vindicandi (recovery).
The phrase “with existing Right of Way (3.00 meters wide)” in the Mercaders' technical description described a boundary adjacent to Lot No. 5808-F-2-B but did not confer ownership or any real right over the easement upon Mercaders. Easements are not acquired simply by annotation in the title but through a juridical act (law, donation, contract, will), as stated in Article 622 of the Civil Code.
Under the Torrens system, the certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership of the land covered and its boundaries. Thus, the Bardilas spouses as owners of Lot No. 5808-F-2-B retained ownership of the 3-meter wide road right of way encumbered upon their land, even if the easement is for the benefit of the Mercaders' adjacent lot. The Mercaders could not claim ownership of any portion of the road right of way merely because they were dominant estate owners.
Ownership Rights and Encroachment
The Court emphasized that as owners of the servient estate, the Bardilas spouses may demand payment for any encroachment on their property, including portions of the Mercaders’ house and
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 163157)
Background and Parties Involved
- This case involves a dispute over a road right of way easement concerning three parcels of land: Lot No. 5808-F-1, Lot No. 5808-F-2-A, and Lot No. 5808-F-2-B, all portions of Lot No. 5808-F located in Barangay Punta Princesa, Cebu City.
- The original titled owner was Arsenia Fernandez, married to Simeon Cortes.
- Lot No. 5808-F-1 was registered under TCT No. 88156 to the minor children (Oliver, Geraldine, Esramay Mercader) of petitioner Bernabe Mercader, Jr.
- Lot No. 5808-F-2-A was owned by petitioners Spouses Bernabe Mercader and Lorna Jurado Mercader, registered under TCT No. 107914.
- Lot No. 5808-F-2-B, directly behind Lot No. 5808-F-2-A and subject of the right of way dispute, was registered under TCT No. 107915 to the respondents Spouses Jesus Bardilas and Letecia Gabuya Bardilas.
- A further adjacent Lot No. 5808-F-3, behind Lot No. 5808-F-2-B, was owned by the respondents as well, registered under TCT No. 88158.
Nature of the Dispute and Right of Way
- The dispute centered on a 3-meter wide road right of way annotated in TCT No. 107915 (Spouses Bardilas’s Lot No. 5808-F-2-B) that granted right of way over their property.
- Respondents’ right of way exited into Clarita Village subdivision and was located approximately 300 lineal meters from Buhisan Road (national road).
- The right of way was closed by the Clarita Village Association in 1992 by erecting a concrete perimeter fence, blocking the Spouses Bardilas’s access, which forced them to use a secondary exit from Lot No. 5808-F-3.
- The Spouses Mercader encroached on a part of this right of way through the construction of a fence and a portion of their residential house, totaling approximately 14 square meters.
Procedural History
- Survey and verification by Engr. Edgar T. Batiquin revealed encroachments on the right of way by both the Spouses Bardilas (fence) and Spouses Mercader (house and fence).
- A meeting among parties resulted in an initial amicable agreement to replace a portion of the wall fence with an iron gate, the cost and keys to be managed by both parties.
- The Spouses Bardilas made a demand of P30,000 for the encroached 14 square meters, which the Spouses Mercader contested, arguing their entitlement as owners of Lot No. 5808-F-2-A with an existing right of way.
- Civil Case No. CEB-12783 was filed by the Spouses Mercader alleging extinguishment of the easement and seeking declaratory relief, injunction and damages.
- Civil Case No. CEB-13384 was filed by the Spouses Bardilas for specific performance and injunction against the closure of the right of way.
- The two cases were consolidated by the RTC for trial.
Trial Court’s Decision
- On October 10, 1995, the RTC rendered a consolidated decision favorable to the Spouses Mercader, declaring:
- The extinguishment of the easement of right of way through non-use.
- Petitioners (Mercaders) were owners of the land where the easement was established.
- The Spouses Bardilas were ordered to pay P100,000 moral damages, P35,000 attorney’s fees, and P20,000 costs of suit.
- The court also declared the closure of the right of way by Clarita Village lawful and dismissed the Bardilas’s suit.
Post-Judgment Developments
- Responden